Rightist.

* Conservative, but not backward-looking* Futurist, but insist on realistic solutions* Deep Ecologist, but not hippies* Paleconservatives, but not haters

This type of conservatism -- because it is based on cause->effect relationships, not the equally valid feelings of individuals -- would be called Rightism.

I see this rising across the globe in many ways. I'll list a few here over the next 200 months.

Quote

MPs will debate a controversial bill on Friday calling for teenage girls to be given lessons in sexual abstinence.

The bill, proposed by Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, would require schools to offer extra sex education classes to girls aged 13 to 16 and for these lessons to include advice on "the benefits of abstinence".

In May, MPs voted 67 to 61, majority six, in favour of allowing Dorries to bring forward her bill. It is listed to receive its second reading on Friday morning, though it is unlikely to become law without government support

No new definitions are required. Nothing new is being proposed. The description of "Rightism" is the description of common sense. I do agree that it is rising over the globe though, we are finally feeling the effects of previous mistakes with stark urgency; it has become easier to argue for societal degradation. Plus I don't like the name.

As for the article; the idea is sensible, the action is inconsequential. I think it will be little more than a joke, these kids still live in a society that glorifies sexual "freedom", they are surrounded by sex positive memes that don't really make any sense when you try to follow them through to their overall effect. It's a Guardian article so naturally there's a lot of rah-rah-ing egality/equality talking heads, but theirs is a response that would be mirrored even by more reasonable people. Whether the complaint is of a "nanny state" interfering where they have no place, of stifling the natural growth of their daughters or not giving equal attention to sons, the effect is the same. It is good that it has been brought up though, that is a positive sign.

"So now we try the traditional way: keep it in your pants until it counts. In other words, don't hand it away -- keep your future in mind."

What does this mean? What traditional way? What allowed that traditional way to exist, what enforced it? What "counts"? What future should one keep in mind? The very values this statement is based on have been lost. Not irrevocably, but the decay is advanced. As a litmus test, what visceral reaction does the phrase "Do not have sex before marriage" evoke?

It should, but does it for the particular individual that reads it even if they have "realized" a certain truth (as is likely for some members here)? My argument is one of conviction. It's sensible, but may not be felt to be right. If it is not really felt, it's not really realized. There is no such thing as uninvolved objectivity for human beings, maybe for a handful of Sannyasis, but even there I am skeptical.

Wonderful idea, but the 24/7 marketing of "be a whore" to young women would maybe have to stop first. How do we replace prole culture by higher values and make it unprofitable to pander to the lowest common denominator?

A Populous poll in February 2011 asked people if they would back a party that "wants to defend the English, create an English parliament, control immigration and challenge Islamic extremism".

A total of 48 per cent said they would either ‘definitely support' or ‘consider supporting' a party with such an agenda, if it shunned violence and 'fascist' imagery. On top of that 39% of respondents considered themselves English rather than British. We have seen a rise in people expressing an English identity over the past 10 years, ironically in tandem with the growth of Scottish nationalism.

...

The idea of the English People’s Party was to create a party which moved away from the reactionary far-right and the dinosaur far-left to create a positive form of ethno nationalism that respected the rights of all ethnic peoples with a sympathetic ear for the ethnic English community. We believe that you do not have to adopt the suicidal policies of civic or cultural nationalism to win your case neither do you have to adopt the policies of racial superiority. We believe that all ethnic groups have a right to their identity whether in this country or worldwide. We strongly oppose globalisation and multi-culturalism which we see as just another form of imperialism which seeks the destruction of all ethnic communities to create a one world consumerist mono-culture.

There's no point embracing leftism as it's incompatible with nationalism, but otherwise, good idea. It is dumb to try to curry votes however because people will see through the false acceptance facade.

We could reinterpret right and left as masculine and femine aspects that each best fit in their own roles. The masculine does best with conquests without. The feminine maintaining within. This isn't the same as a foreign and nation-scale domestic policy level division because the feminine aspect would need to be even more localized or focused on the small parts of the whole. How localized? Community and households at most with the masculine role taking over the regional and nation scale. As it stands, these roles are a bit mixed up in reality.

I don't even see myself as conservative. In my mind I am a moderate, or a moderate liberal, but most people would probably call me an anarchist or a libertarian.

I find that iff you put yourself on the left of every single issue except for welfare, the tax code and balancing the budget, you'll see everything work out for the better. Nature will take its course from there.

I would say one should have a liberal politcal philosophy and a conservative life style. That shouldn't be a law, but it is a good idea. Most importantly though, people become stronger when they are expected to judge themselves. The more people are use to being responsible to their own actions, as even Machiovelli would agree, the less there is a need for an iron law.

Although I thnk those additudes come from regional differences, but that's another argument.

Most importantly though, people become stronger when they are expected to judge themselves. The more people are use to being responsible to their own actions, as even Machiovelli would agree, the less there is a need for an iron law.

There's certainly truth to this. Mass equality makes us think we are safe from the observation and critical knowledge of others. This leads in turn to degenerative permissiveness.

Well even if you could find some value in it, it is a poor goal, because it doesn't fit in with the laws of nature. I might want to grow huge pink wings and fly arouind and save people from Tsunamis and I might have the best intentions in the world with this, but it just doesn't work out like we want it to, does it?

Correct. Like anarchy, moral relativism is impossible because collectives among any aligned moral relativists come to dominate with the ultimate victor dictating their morality over all. Or, liberalism is like arguing on the internet; even if a liberal drowns out all the realists, she still remains a fucking moron.

I first began to suspect Christianity might have a few problems when I was introduced to some guy, whose first words to me were: "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?"

I wish someone had taken a photo of me as those words were uttered. I would like to look at it now, and see the effect it had on me. I mean, who says stuff like that, as his opening line? What can you reply to a thing like that? I think I said: "No."